By JOHN WOOLFOLK
San Jose Mercury News (California)
The union representing San Jose firefighters filed an unfair labor practices lawsuit Friday seeking to overturn the city’s agreement to boost police officers’ retirement benefits without also cutting a deal with firefighters.
The suit, which pits San Jose’s firefighters against the city and San Jose’s police officers union, widens the rift that has left the firefighters without a contract and battling their traditional bargaining partners from the police department in court.
Another lawsuit filed Wednesday by fire department Battalion Chief Keith Keesling contends the police benefit increases constitute an unlawful use of public funds because the city didn’t first give the public a chance to see an assessment of the future costs.
“They didn’t do the process correctly,” said Christopher Platten, the attorney representing the firefighters in the lawsuits, both of which seek to overturn the city’s approval of the new police retirement benefits.
San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle was unable to respond to the allegations because he had not yet seen the complaints, which were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
But Police Officers Association President Robert Lopez said the benefit changes, which the city council approved 10-1 on Dec. 13, are legally sound.
“There should be no problem,” Lopez said. “Our contract was signed. I don’t think there’s any question of the legalities.”
San Jose police and firefighters have shared a retirement plan since 1961. Since 1991 they have agreed that any changes in benefits must be approved by police, firefighters and the city together. The union’s lawsuit claims the city had no right to break that custom.
Randy Sekany, president of San Jose Firefighters Local 230, said the concern is that if police and firefighters have separate benefits under the same pension plan, one department’s employees could end up drawing benefits partly paid for by the other.
“How do you guarantee that the benefits you’re providing to the police officers aren’t paid for in any way, shape or form by firefighter contributions?” Sekany asked. “How do you know you don’t have cross-subsidies? Everyone agrees that wouldn’t be fair.”
Lopez said that’s not going to happen.
“Officers would never consider anybody paying their retirement other than themselves,” Lopez said. “The additional benefits would be paid for by police officers.”
Firefighters have been working without a contract since March 1, 2004. Their negotiations have stalled over training costs for special operations such as search-and-rescue, hazardous materials and terrorism response, Sekany said.
City officials offered the same retirement increases to firefighters and police, including raising pensions for those who retire after 30 years to 90 percent of their final salary instead of the maximum 85 percent, matching most public safety agencies in the state.
Firefighters thought it was a good retirement offer, but they did not want to sign off on it until they reached a deal with the city on salary, Sekany said.
When the city council in December approved a salary and retirement package for police officers, who had overwhelmingly endorsed the deal, firefighters cried foul. They accused the city and police of breaking the agreement to negotiate retirement benefit changes together.
“I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the way it was done,” said City Councilman Chuck Reed, who was among the majority who voted in favor of the police deal. “It certainly is remarkable to have one bargaining unit suing another over a deal that was ratified by 80 percent of the Police Officers Association membership.”